The diagram below shows the cutting tools used by man 1.4 million years ago and 80000 years ago.
The illustration compares the cutting tools utilized by the early human in two separate times in terms of their figure and sharpness.
Overall, it is crystal clear that cutting tools had encountered significant changes since 1.4 million years ago until 80000 years ago regarding their form.
By 80000 years ago the rocks had become sharper at the edge and a bit rounder at the base which could make them easier to handle and more effective. In addition to this, in 1.4 million years ago the cutting tools seem to have a different bump and dump in various parts but these irregularities have disappeared in the time span. In such a context, the cutting tools appear to become oval which is thicker at the bottom and thinner at the top. Also, another variation is in their top which is more straight at the edge in 80000 years ago. In other words, the fluctuations at both edges had been omitted until 80000 years ago.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-26 | Mohammad Khaleghi Esfahani | 78 | view |
- Due to the fact that in order to produce in order to produce meat normally more area will be needed in comparison with a crop, some people aver that meat usage should be diminished in all corner of the world. 73
- The illustrations demonstrate the typical temperature and normal sunshine hours in London, New York, and Sydney. 89
- The bar chart compares the volume of smartphones and landlines per 100 people in five various countries. 73
- Incontrovertibly, in the new millennium the average of people age has increased, irrespective of their gender 78
- The table compares social and economic factors based on the United Nation (UN) statistics in four nations, namely Canada, Japan, Peru, and Zaire in 1994. 84
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, regarding, so, in addition, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 7.0 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 3.15609756098 127% => OK
Pronoun: 8.0 5.60731707317 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 26.0 33.7804878049 77% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 759.0 965.302439024 79% => OK
No of words: 162.0 196.424390244 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.68518518519 4.92477711251 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.56762134501 3.73543355544 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41004129421 2.65546596893 91% => OK
Unique words: 92.0 106.607317073 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.567901234568 0.547539520022 104% => OK
syllable_count: 225.9 283.868780488 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.33902439024 69% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 7.0 8.94146341463 78% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 22.4926829268 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.3492505525 43.030603864 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.428571429 112.824112599 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1428571429 22.9334400587 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.14285714286 5.23603664747 156% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 1.13902439024 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.09268292683 24% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.391714588006 0.215688989381 182% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.196500563699 0.103423049105 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.114108852431 0.0843802449381 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.26851800104 0.15604864568 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.149035182781 0.0819641961636 182% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.2329268293 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 61.2550243902 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 10.3012195122 96% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.22 11.4140731707 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.7 8.06136585366 96% => OK
difficult_words: 30.0 40.7170731707 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.4329268293 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.9970731707 102% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.0658536585 90% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.